Under Pressure: Sack Breakdown

[Shouright]

You have consistently tried to paint a picture based on selective statistics to fit your agenda that he is near the league bottom. To suggest you have tried to portray him as average is as inaccurate as your evaluation of his play.

I'm happy to re-read any posts of mine you can find in which that's the case. :)

 

[Shouright]

Shou, sometimes I wonder if you watched games last year at all. If you really believe Tannehill is not capable of escaping pressure effectively, how do you explain the complete absence of this issue last year?

A couple of possible ones:

1) He's being coached to stay in the pocket, and/or
2) He's been given feedback that he needs to go through his progression more often, rather than deciding as frequently to throw to his primary read, and in focusing on refining his game in that area, he's less able to "multi-task" and allocate a sufficient portion of his attention to the pass rush and what he needs to do to avoid it.

 

[Irishfinfan1]

I don't think it is the oline's fault in the main just because of the average release time or average time from snap to sack, there is also the issue of how small the pocket becomes so quickly which severely inhibits Tannehill's ability to move in the pocket and to be confident that he can release it without his arm getting hit. Tannehill has done a fantastic job this year given how poor the line was the majority of the first load of games and also because Sherman hasn't done enough things to give Tannehill more time.

 

[ATL_PHIN_FAN]

A couple of possible ones:

1) He's being coached to stay in the pocket, and/or
2) He's been given feedback that he needs to go through his progression more often, rather than deciding as frequently to throw to his primary read, and in focusing on refining his game in that area, he's less able to "multi-task" and allocate a sufficient portion of his attention to the pass rush and what he needs to do to avoid it.

I don't believe any of those "possibilities" have sufficient bearing to account for what's happened this year. The line quite obviously played much better in pass pro last year than it is playing this year. You are making too many assumptions as to what Tannehill is or isn't already capable of doing, skill wise.

When you call Tannehill "average", do you mean average when compared to other 2nd year starting QBs over the past 20 years or so? Or, average when compared to elite and established QBs of today (in essence: Brady, P. Manning, Brees)? If you mean the latter, why are you commenting at all, since he's exactly where we'd want him to be in his development, right?

To me, the only comparison that should matter at this point is with other 2nd year starting QBs over the past 20 years. Any other comparison is simply unfair, nor is it appropriate at this point.

 

[russianbear]

And if it were fourteen (three fewer), which for Tannehill would be 47% of his total sacks, the percentage would be in the average range of "short sacks" in the sample.

However it isn't, it's 17. Not 14. It is significantly higher, and our line has been playing significantly worse than league average. Why don't you do something useful, and come up with an evaluation of our line's overall play in our losses, and wins. Then we can see the correlation between solid line play, and Tannehill effectively getting us a W. I'm sure you will find a way to taint it with your nauseating aura of self verification.

 

[Shouright]

I don't believe any of those "possibilities" have sufficient bearing to account for what's happened this year. The line quite obviously played much better in pass pro last year than it is playing this year. You are making too many assumptions as to what Tannehill is or isn't already capable of doing, skill wise.

It's not a commentary on what he's capable of doing in terms of movement in response to the rush. It's what he's able to do when his attention is allocated on such a big part of the game elsewhere, perhaps (his progression).

In other words, he's more than capable of moving (i.e., he certainly has the necessary athleticism), but when his attention is focused almost exclusively on what's happening downfield, he isn't aware enough of when and how to move. Consequently he's a sitting duck when pressured.

When you call Tannehill "average", do you mean average when compared to other 2nd year starting QBs over the past 20 years or so? Or, average when compared to elite and established QBs of today (in essence: Brady, P. Manning, Brees)? If you mean the latter, why are you commenting at all, since he's exactly where we'd want him to be in his development, right?

To me, the only comparison that should matter at this point is with other 2nd year starting QBs over the past 20 years. Any other comparison is simply unfair, nor is it appropriate at this point.

I'm calling him average in comparison to the league as a whole. We need more data to say how he compares to second-year starters in the most recent passing era.

Be aware, however, that he was no better than average last year, even in comparison to rookie starters in that era:

http://www.finheaven.com/showthread.php?330125-The-Talent-Surrounding-Ryan-Tannehill&highlight=

I suspect a comparison to second-year starters at QB would be no different.

That said, like I've said all along, if he finishes the year with a QB rating of 85 give or take a couple points, I'll consider it a success, and a likely sign that he can be franchise material long-term.

 

[Shouright]

However it isn't, it's 17. Not 14. It is significantly higher, and our line has been playing significantly worse than league average.

To the tune of three sacks of the 32 on the year. Certainly those three haven't been what everyone has been talking about, have they? :unsure:

Why don't you do something useful, and come up with an evaluation of our line's overall play in our losses, and wins. Then we can see the correlation between solid line play, and Tannehill effectively getting us a W.

Why don't you do that?

I'm sure you will find a way to taint it with your nauseating aura of self verification.

Funny, what I find nauseating is the self-verification of subjective impressions based on nothing objective. I find that smacks of far more nauseating grandiosity than a subjective impression checked and balanced by a self-driven objective exploration.

Congrats on doing nothing to counter that in your post, and instead inviting me to conduct even more objective research.

 

[EvilDylan]

A couple of possible ones:

1) He's being coached to stay in the pocket, and/or
2) He's been given feedback that he needs to go through his progression more often, rather than deciding as frequently to throw to his primary read, and in focusing on refining his game in that area, he's less able to "multi-task" and allocate a sufficient portion of his attention to the pass rush and what he needs to do to avoid it.

OR. the obvious answer, the line isn't as good as it was last year. The simplest answer is usually the correct answer.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[miamiron]

Shou, sometimes I wonder if you watched games last year at all. If you really believe Tannehill is not capable of escaping pressure effectively, how do you explain the complete absence of this issue last year?

Did you see the 7 sacks in the New England game last season

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

And if it were fourteen (three fewer), which for Tannehill would be 47% of his total sacks, the percentage would be in the average range of "short sacks" in the sample.

But it is not 14, it's 17. If it were 0, the Fins would have the best OL ever, but it's not.

 

[tazthenomad]

Please, tell us also how you felt about Chad Henne's future after his first year as a starter, so we can determine whether you should be regarded as omniscient in these matters.

I'm disappointed. You do realize that what you've done is an ad hominem attack here your post and doesn't address the OP or present any argument or evidence, right? This doesn't represent your view of using objective evidence to advance your point very well.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[Shouright]

But it is not 14, it's 17. If it were 0, the Fins would have the best OL ever, but it's not.

And if it were 14, they would be average by that measure. Again, are those three sacks really what everyone is so up in arms about? :unsure:

It's easy to say "but it's not" and stop there, but we're still left with what it actually is, which isn't much different from average, and certainly not enough to fit the perceptions of many here.

 

[Shouright]

Another problem with the data in the article in the original post is that the correlation between "short sacks" (ones that happen in fewer than 2.6 seconds) and the rate of pressured dropbacks in the NFL is -0.61, meaning that when NFL QBs experience more frequent pressure, their rate of such "short sacks" is actually lower. In addition, the correlation between "short sacks" and the rate of sacks on pressured dropbacks is 0.12, which is nearly nil.

If someone has a logical explanation for that, I'm all ears. I find it difficult to consider "short sacks" a valid measure of offensive line play when it correlates neither with the rate of QB pressures, nor with the rate of QB sacks when pressured. It could instead be a measure of how often a team is blitzed, for example, or any number of other things.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Again, are those three sacks really what everyone is so up in arms about? :unsure:

No, it's not THREE sacks. It's not even SEVENTEEN sacks. It's the bulk of THIRTY TWO sacks that are on the OL. I don't give a crap about % of pressures, sack rates, standard deviations, blah, blah, blah.....

I can WATCH the plays and determine, in my opinion (and these are all just opinions), that the OL has not been playing up to par. You can ignore the obvious all you want, luckily you are in the minority. Your "analysis" is flawed is too many ways to keep trying to convince you. Several posters (myself included) have shot more holes in it than we can count, but please, continue on.....

 

[blitzhappy]

We all went over the PFF sack times in another thread weeks ago. they're times are way off all you have to do is watch the game clock to see.